S R RAJINI Vs. PRINCIPAL LAW COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.No,439/E/2001 dated 12.4.2002 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies in the 4th and 5th year of B.L.Degree Course at the first respondent college and write the concerned examinations conducted by the 5th respondent.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.4.2000 made in his proceedings Na.Ka.No,439/E/2001 cancelling the admission of the petitioner to the five year Bachelor of Law Course for the academic year 1998-99 on the ground of submission of a bogus +2 Mark sheet and consequently, seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies in the fourth and fifth year of B.L.Degree Course at the first respondent college and write the concerned examinations conducted by the fifth respondent.

(2.) THE filing of the petition arising out of the following factual scenario :

(3.) MR.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been charged for the allegation of producing a bogus mark sheet without any materials. It is further contended that the said charge is baseless and no evidence available on record to implicate the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner forged the mark sheet. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the petitioner received a communication dated 9.7.1998 from the third respondent directing the petitioner to receive the retotalled mark sheet from the Headmistress of the school and the said communication was addressed to the Headmistress of the school and as such it cannot be contended by the third respondent that the mark sheet obtained by the petitioner after retotalling is a bogus one. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the first respondent passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner has not proved that the mark sheet produced by her is a genuine one ignoring that it is the burden of the third respondent to prove that the mark sheet produced by the petitioner is not a genuine one. The learned senior counsel also proceeded to point out certain other illegalities and infirmities in passing the impugned order by the first respondent to the effect that the first respondent has ignored, overlooked the explanation submitted by the petitioner through her affidavit and also brushed aside the documents produced by the petitioner, namely, the letter dated 9.7.1998 sent by the third respondent, a chalan for payment of a sum of Rs.127/- for retotalling dated 10.6.1998 and the copy of the application submitted for retotalling dated 12.6.1998. It is contended on the other hand that the third respondent has not produced any materials to prove that the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner is a bogus one. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the first respondent before passing the impugned order has not called for any remarks from the third respondent and it is also contended that the first respondent passed the impugned order arbitrarily and without application of mind merely on the basis of the letter of the third respondent dated 3.3.2001 stating that the mark sheet produced by the petitioner is a bogus one without even examining the third respondent and without any evidence.